here is what I will do tomorrow: I will first merge my pull request and then incorporate all your proposed changes by hand. I will also use your version of the proof of the Inc-Ex-principle which is admittedly simpler.
Finally, I will expand on your first question in the text. The reason that we could just measure P(2,4,6) directly is that we assume A=POWER(\Omega) and P is a function on A. Thus it also must map (2,4,6) to something. We just have not specified what it maps them to in our description of P. However, if we were given the full measure P, we could just read it of. As I said, I will expand on this in the script a bit further.
Finally, let us maybe discuss together what to do about the "wrong" example (your second in-text comment) tomorrow.
Hey Christian,
here is what I will do tomorrow: I will first merge my pull request and then incorporate all your proposed changes by hand. I will also use your version of the proof of the Inc-Ex-principle which is admittedly simpler.
Finally, I will expand on your first question in the text. The reason that we could just measure P(2,4,6) directly is that we assume A=POWER(\Omega) and P is a function on A. Thus it also must map (2,4,6) to something. We just have not specified what it maps them to in our description of P. However, if we were given the full measure P, we could just read it of. As I said, I will expand on this in the script a bit further.
Finally, let us maybe discuss together what to do about the "wrong" example (your second in-text comment) tomorrow.